I myself am a genetic distance of 15 away from one of the Byrnes on the project, who matches the modal almost perfectly.

Overall, your genetic signature could possibly test CCGG on DYS464x. And I think you're right, the cluster has the potential to include many more British and Welsh, but it originally sampled those supposedly belonging to the Lagin tribe of Leinster.

And these families just might be the Lagin lines, but what we're finding is that Leinster's connection to Wales/Britain could be by blood.

I myself am a genetic distance of 15 away from one of the Byrnes on the project, who matches the modal almost perfectly.

Overall, your genetic signature could possibly test CCGG on DYS464x. And I think you're right, the cluster has the potential to include many more British and Welsh, but it originally sampled those supposedly belonging to the Lagin tribe of Leinster.

And these families just might be the Lagin lines, but what we're finding is that Leinster's connection to Wales/Britain could be by blood.

My 464 a, b and c are 15, 17 and 17. Do I need to get the e, f and g tested? I still don't quite get it. If I come up with the set of unusual values at these markers then I may be from the Lagin tribe? Are the odds such I should get the test?

I think you should join the group and test for 464x. We have a number of Cambro-Norman lineages that have come back CCGG, and some of those are Welsh: Adams, Owen...

I'll read up on it. I'm genealogically from Leinster and legend-wise from Wales as a Cambro(Welsh)-Norman. Maybe I'm a Dumnonii. That could be ancestral to Welsh. It would seem that the Norman paternal lineage men would be something completely different.. unless they were a Breton type of Norman. Some will laugh at that statement but the Normans were quite mixed before they invaded England.

Well, the Norman army was mostly of Breton ancestry which would make them descendants of the Welsh.

I was told the Norman army was about one third old Norse-men, one third Flemish and one third Bretons, which as you said is probably descended from old Britons. Do you have a source for the "mostly" Breton? If that is true, no wonder why it is so hard to tell who is who in the Isles.

Mike, just look at some of the pedigrees of the Scottish and Welsh of Norman descent. Even Norman barons that settled in Wales were originally from Brittany; I know the Stewart line was - FitzAlan.

Check out some of the STR values of the Jordan, D'Arcy, Owen, and Redmond samples on the 464x results page. Those are all Norman surnames brought to Ireland, with the exception of Owen which is Welsh. You'll notice how similar they are. Plus, my closest matches are in Northern England, Southern Scotland, and Wales. Seems to me, I might be a descendant of the ancient Rheged or Bryneich kingdoms in the North.

Ivernic peoples living in Ireland spoke a P-Celtic language, very similar to Old Welsh, before the arrival of the Gaels. What we're seeing is unmistakable relatedness between Leinstermen and their Brythonic relatives across the Irish Sea.

I don't know why I didn't look at this one earlier, but I noticed what probably is obvious. The Irish Type III that Dennis W provides info on is one of the patterns of R-L21* folks. This is a subset of the true Irish III criteria but these L21*'s fit III's off-modal markers at 439, 459a/b, 464a/b/c, 456.

re: using phylogenetic trees. I have a different background than most here and once was interested in determining the Power Spectral Density of random scenes. The PSD is a squared function relative to brightness differences. The analogy here is that the tree distance measure is a squared distance relative to the different dys loci values. The interesting result in the work I did was that most "random scenes" have the same PSD shape. Now, I haven't studied the algorithms for distance estimates in Flexus, et.al., but I do believe it is some type of squaring algorithm like least squared distance. So, the net result is that "phase" is lost between entry values. There may be? clusters with common sets of numbers? but the mutation patterns could be quite different.

I know that Dr. Richard McGregor uses them on the Ian Cam, a highly closely related set of people and I can't make any sense of who is next to whom? JMHO

.... There may be? clusters with common sets of numbers? but the mutation patterns could be quite different...

I think you are saying that a cluster of similar haplotypes does not equal a true sub-clade. This is true since STR markers can vary up and down, some members of an apparent cluster may really have just "converged" into the cluster from another founder's subclade. We are just looking at the increased possibility of a true subclade if we find a strong cluster, particularly if origins start to line up.Projects like Walk the Y can investigate with in depth testing to seek a new SNP withing a cluster.

Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:48:43 -0700> From: ysearcher@mac.com> Subject: Re: [DNA] R-L21* in France Thus Far> To: GENEALOGY-DNA-L@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <782EB2BA-E518-4A35-A80F-9B58C5AD98D7@mac.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed>> I'd like to paraphrase & repeat some points that Rich has made with> regards to postulated origins of R-L21. If I may quote what I said> earlier in this thread>> > It appears to me that the distribution of R-L21* to date suggests> > that it originated amongst the progenitors of the Celts & spread> > west along the Atlantic facade> > until it reached the most northwestern periphery of Europe, where> > it now has it's greatest density, most likely a result of> > population isolation in northwestern Ireland.>> To suggest that a SNP might have originated with any given ethnic> group is not at all the same as saying that all or most of the ethnic> group in question carried the SNP. I don't see anything inconsistent> with saying that U152 & L21 originated amongst the proto-Celts, &> that U106 may have been well represented as well. It is however> indisputable (pending the accumulation of additional testing) that> preliminary results suggest that Ireland is clearly saturated with> L21, & that is unlikely to have happened "overnight". With it's near> absence in Spain, the northwest to southeast cline of M269 seems to> be shifting more northward for L21, becoming a little closer to a> northwest to northeast cline. As Rich has pointed out, we are very> far from having anywhere near a representative sampling of eastern> Europe, so with the passage of time, that issue will be slowly> resolved, one way or the other. Pat

AND

> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 23:44:03 +0000 (UTC)> From: dnalister@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Message-ID:> <2007595302.13582001243295043561.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8>> Dear Tim,>> The age calculations for Scandinavia and Eastern Europe depend on a very small number of haplotypes, and the other calculated ages don't differ by very much at all. If my own experiences are any guide, some of the diversity attributed to the Isles is the result of non-paternity events leading to the attribution of Continental lines to the Isles. If any Isles individuals from groups close to the Western Atlantic modal haplotype have been attributed to Continental locations, you could also have a case of the diversity of Continental haplotypes being underestimated, too.>> If young-looking Continental clusters could be identified, that would be consistent with an Isles origin for R-L21. I would like to see some clusters with a Continental flavor identified, but I don't think that many people have been working on this. When I look at Continental haplotypes, I generally don't find them easy to place in clusters at all. If our samples are not adequate for placing European haplotypes into clusters, I think that our confidence intervals for age estimates have to be really large. Still, I am thankful to you for doing these calculations. At some point, the numbers from these calculations are going to tell us more than they do now.>

AND

> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:19:38 -0700> From: "Tim Janzen" > Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results> To: > Message-ID: <200905260019.n4Q0JtHC019929@mail.rootsweb.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii">> Dear Kirsten,> You make some good points. The age spread between the continental> haplotypes and the British Isles haplotypes has narrowed since I last ran> calculations on this topic. We do need more data, but it is interesting> that the hypothesis that L21 originated in the British Isles is still being> supported by the data we have.> Sincerely,> Tim

AND

> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 00:57:56 +0000 (UTC)> From: dnalister@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results> To: genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com> Message-ID:> <445027155.13607201243299476987.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8>> Dear Tim,>> I don't think that I would say that the data supports the hypothesis that L21 originated in the Isles very well at this point. TMRCA estimates are just one way of looking at this data. You have probably read some of the earlier posts about this subject, so I won't repeat their points. One interesting way of looking at the data might be to look to see where some of the haplotypes attributed to Europe are plotted on the phylogenetic diagram that Vince Tilroe posted for members of the R-L21Plus and R-L21 WTY projects with 67 marker haplotypes. Some of the ones that I have been looking at recently appear to be only very distantly related to other project members, with their haplotypes plotted at the end of long spikes coming out from the center of the plot, with very long distances along the paths connecting them to their neighbors. I have not tried to do a survey of the proportions of such outlier haplotypes attributed to different populations. Doing that would probably be rath!> er time-consuming, but it would also be very interesting.>> http://vince.tilroe.ca/P312/L21_2009_05_18.png>> Kirsten

In response to SusanR "What do you think?" re: haplotype TMCRA's by geography:

I think we should be careful with the confidence intervals related to these calculations. That being said, all of the numbers are about the same. The most recent common ancestor seems to be a little earlier than 1000 BC and if you give a 1000 years either direction you get a little earlier than 2000 BC to about the time of Christ Incarnate.

To go all the way back to 5000 BC and the Neolithic for the spread of L21 would mean these MCRA calculations are way off so I'll assume the Neolithic is not a viable alternative.

Trying to correlate this spread with archaeplogical information, I can only come up with Bell Beaker, Hallstatt or La Tene folks. I don't think the spread of Hallstat was as great as the spread of L21 was it and I don't think La Tene had as big an impact in some of the areas L21 is found. I'm not sure at all though, anyone have arguments on why L21 was spread with Hallstatt or La Tene?

Everything keeps coming back to the Bell Beaker folks as the last alternative viable.

In response to SusanR "What do you think?" re: haplotype TMCRA's by geography:

Trying to correlate this spread with archaeplogical information, I can only come up with Bell Beaker, Hallstatt or La Tene folks. I don't think the spread of Hallstat was as great as the spread of L21 was it and I don't think La Tene had as big an impact in some of the areas L21 is found. I'm not sure at all though, anyone have arguments on why L21 was spread with Hallstatt or La Tene?

Everything keeps coming back to the Bell Beaker folks as the last alternative viable.

Notice that there are just 149 years between the 67-marker British Isles TMRCA and the Western Europe TMRCA. Notice also that there were only 14 67-marker halotypes for Western Europe compared with 108 for the British Isles.

Yet Mr. Janzen says the results "continue to suggest that L21 originated in the British Isles, probably in Ireland or Scotland".

Yet Mr. Janzen says the results "continue to suggest that L21 originated in the British Isles, probably in Ireland or Scotland".

Yeah, right!

The results suggest no such thing.

I agree with you. I'm not sure why he makes the statement when you'd think he'd know the MRCA calculations are essentially the same for L21 in all of these geographies across the Isles and Europe. The differences are so small and deep inside the much wider confidence intervals that I'm not sure why he feels compelled to make the conclusion he does. I figure the data is so obvious if you understand the confidence intervals that it is hardly worth discussing with him. The data is self-evident. The MRCA of L21 all of Europe (at least given the data we have today) is all about the same... about 3000 years ago. The conclusion I make is there was a massive expansion of L21 populations about that timeframe.

Yet Mr. Janzen says the results "continue to suggest that L21 originated in the British Isles, probably in Ireland or Scotland".

Yeah, right!

The results suggest no such thing.

I agree with you. I'm not sure why he makes the statement when you'd think he'd know the MRCA calculations are essentially the same for L21 in all of these geographies across the Isles and Europe. The differences are so small and deep inside the much wider confidence intervals that I'm not sure why he feels compelled to make the conclusion he does. I figure the data is so obvious if you understand the confidence intervals that it is hardly worth discussing with him. The data is self-evident. The MRCA of L21 all of Europe (at least given the data we have today) is all about the same... about 3000 years ago. The conclusion I make is there was a massive expansion of L21 populations about that timeframe.

That's right, and according to Ken Nordtvedt, P312 itself and U106 aren't much older. So what occurred was an R1b1b2a1 population explosion, probably in Central Europe somewhere. After that, P312 spun off its subdivisions in pretty rapid succession.

I also posted this over at DNA Forums, and it's from Rootsweb Genealogy-DNA, so for some of you this may be a repeat.

What do you all think of this?

I'll just present some data that I have developed - that is confusing to me - to say the least.

First if I do an intraclade TMRCA estimate between myself and the Clan Gregor current chief I get an answer of: TMRCA = 11,234 BP +/-1280 years. I used 60 dys loci and excluded 7 of the faster dys loci (all of which had mutations by the way).

Second if I take a set of the MacGregor Ian Cam (all descendants of the clan founder) and progressively converge them I get the following results: I did this in successive order starting with zero and one mutation entries and proceeding in 7 successive steps to 24 entries including two entries with 7 mutations. The first meaningful convergence is 1160 to 1180 AD, which is somewhat in agreement with the clan being founded by Griogair, born 1300. We have no way of knowing when the STR mutation occurred, this would suggest an earlier ancestor or the accuracy of the computation. This convergence included all entries with 4 or less mutations. The next meaningful mutation was using all entries with 6 or fewer mutations and was 850 AD, the era of King McAlpin, first Scotti king of Scotland. Finally, with seven mutations I got a TMRCA of 630 AD, closely after the Dal Riada moved from Ireland to Scotland.

In all of these convergences I used Zhiv mutation rates not germ-line. The germ-line advocate would say divide your answers by 3.6! That, just possibly, might make sense in the first case, but it would make no sense at all in the second. Many of the known lines of the Ian Cam can trace to the 1600's-1700's.

I would argue that there was a significant bottleneck, read that Doggerland, and that we have a lot of young clusters from the growth over the last few thousand years and some oddities like my haplotype, z5hg3, which is usually 25 to 35 GD from most other L-21. Note the Ian Cam are all L-21+ (or at least the chief is and so am I), which says that if you are Ian Cam you are L-21+.

In my opinion, doggerland, is the key to understanding L-21+. Look at the haplotype similarities between the MacGregor Ian Cam and some of the Benelux entries that are L-21+ also!

You have the right to your opinion, which involves those who disagree with it in a dispute over Zhivotovsky rates versus germline (observed father-to-son) mutation rates.

I can't argue the math with you. That's been done before by people who know a lot more than I do, but I find the arguments of Nordtvedt, Vizachero, Klyosov and others more compelling, so I think Doggerland was under the waves a long long time before the first L21+ man got slapped on the butt by the midwife or Druid or whoever.

I also posted this over at DNA Forums, and it's from Rootsweb Genealogy-DNA, so for some of you this may be a repeat.

What do you all think of this?

I'll just present some data that I have developed - that is confusing to me - to say the least.

First if I do an intraclade TMRCA estimate between myself and the Clan Gregor current chief I get an answer of: TMRCA = 11,234 BP +/-1280 years. I used 60 dys loci and excluded 7 of the faster dys loci (all of which had mutations by the way).

Second if I take a set of the MacGregor Ian Cam (all descendants of the clan founder) and progressively converge them I get the following results: I did this in successive order starting with zero and one mutation entries and proceeding in 7 successive steps to 24 entries including two entries with 7 mutations. The first meaningful convergence is 1160 to 1180 AD, which is somewhat in agreement with the clan being founded by Griogair, born 1300. We have no way of knowing when the STR mutation occurred, this would suggest an earlier ancestor or the accuracy of the computation. This convergence included all entries with 4 or less mutations. The next meaningful mutation was using all entries with 6 or fewer mutations and was 850 AD, the era of King McAlpin, first Scotti king of Scotland. Finally, with seven mutations I got a TMRCA of 630 AD, closely after the Dal Riada moved from Ireland to Scotland.

In all of these convergences I used Zhiv mutation rates not germ-line. The germ-line advocate would say divide your answers by 3.6! That, just possibly, might make sense in the first case, but it would make no sense at all in the second. Many of the known lines of the Ian Cam can trace to the 1600's-1700's.

I would argue that there was a significant bottleneck, read that Doggerland, and that we have a lot of young clusters from the growth over the last few thousand years and some oddities like my haplotype, z5hg3, which is usually 25 to 35 GD from most other L-21. Note the Ian Cam are all L-21+ (or at least the chief is and so am I), which says that if you are Ian Cam you are L-21+.

In my opinion, doggerland, is the key to understanding L-21+. Look at the haplotype similarities between the MacGregor Ian Cam and some of the Benelux entries that are L-21+ also!

Wait wait, your post makes it look like you are quoting ME on the entire thing. I only wrote the first two sentences of that, everything else is not mine, and not my opinion!!!Susan

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that. I just didn't want to repeat the whole msg over. I wasn't challenging you or anyone for that matter. Just throwing some results in the ring and see what happens.

I've been pondering this whole issue of modal haplotypes also and think there is a wrinkle in using them. As the name implies, we are using the score most frequently made to establish the haplotype value. That is all wrong in a bottleneck situation. In bottleneck, as I understand it, there is a serious reduction in population and then subsequently, there is a growth spurt. I think the modal haplotypes may in some cases only represent the spurt data, since the older haplotypes are few and far between? So, when we look at the modal haplotype of L-21+, we may not be looking at the most probable set of ancestral values, in fact, if there was a bottleneck - then I'm sure we are not. In my opinion this makes L-21+ appear much younger than it really might be?

Oh my posting was just a reprint of some postings that I saw on Rootsweb Genealogy-DNA mailing list. I posted them for discussion only; they weren't necessarily my opinion either!!

Well I will be the very first to admit I'm not that great at math of any type, but it would seem to me all the modal tells you is what are the most common values at the moment. I'm not even sure how often the modal values are updated! So, I guess all I can say is, right now it's all we have. And I'll leave all the scientific/math stuff up to everyone else.

Even if L21 is older, I still think it must've come from the area that many of us already believe it comes from. Note that I said "MANY", not all of us!!!

I think what we really need is another SNP or two to come along to help us, and hopefully WTY will give us what we need!!!

Oh my posting was just a reprint of some postings that I saw on Rootsweb Genealogy-DNA mailing list. I posted them for discussion only; they weren't necessarily my opinion either!!

Well I will be the very first to admit I'm not that great at math of any type, but it would seem to me all the modal tells you is what are the most common values at the moment. I'm not even sure how often the modal values are updated! So, I guess all I can say is, right now it's all we have. And I'll leave all the scientific/math stuff up to everyone else.

Even if L21 is older, I still think it must've come from the area that many of us already believe it comes from. Note that I said "MANY", not all of us!!!

I think what we really need is another SNP or two to come along to help us, and hopefully WTY will give us what we need!!!

If L21 so old, why is it so difficult to spot an L21+ haplotype? Why are they so like other P312+ haplotypes? Why is the L21 Modal essentially the same as the U152 Modal, etc.?

I think Ken Nordtvedt and Vince Vizachero are right: The birth of R1b1b2 and then a big expansion of it and R1b1b2a1 during the Neolithic Period and into the Bronze Age, with subclades being spun off in pretty rapid succession.

I've been pondering this whole issue of modal haplotypes also and think there is a wrinkle in using them. As the name implies, we are using the score most frequently made to establish the haplotype value. That is all wrong in a bottleneck situation. In bottleneck, as I understand it, there is a serious reduction in population and then subsequently, there is a growth spurt. I think the modal haplotypes may in some cases only represent the spurt data, since the older haplotypes are few and far between? So, when we look at the modal haplotype of L-21+, we may not be looking at the most probable set of ancestral values, in fact, if there was a bottleneck - then I'm sure we are not. In my opinion this makes L-21+ appear much younger than it really might be?

I'd agree with your dubiety regarding modal haplotypes. Notice that the Modal Haplotype is charted near, but not at the centre of the aforementioned Neighbornet SplitsTree diagram. It may be close to representing the ancestral haplotype, but probably isn't it exactly. Maybe using Mean Haplotypes would be slightly more accurate?

I think the closest we can get to visualizing how a bottleneck may look like is by referring to the same diagram, where the M222+ group connects to everyone else. You've got a fairly bare branch with a nice big bush at the end; plus it coincides with a rather distinctive motif. Mutations keep occurring regardless of who lives and who dies. They're kind of apathetic that way.